> There's a bit of a mix-up here. My assertion that "fashionable tattooing"> in the West may be surface structure without deep structure (i.e., it is> imitation of the surface, outward manifestation of ritualized, symbolic> behavior) does not entail the absence of the phenomenon of deep structure> in the West, only that "fashionable tattooing" in the West, by virtue of
it> being imitative behavior, lacks a "deep structure," hence the absence of> symbolism, ritual, etc. with "fashionable tattooing" is not surprising. I> suspect that if one pushes hard enough, McCreery's "social and cultural> context that informed the rites" would start to look suspiciously like
deep> structure.>
What constitutes fashionable tattooing? And who are they imitating?